Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.The employer, which is the writ petitioner before me, is an establishment to which the said Act applies. The employer had admittedly/concededly committed default in payment of contribution to provident fund for the period 03/98 to 06/01 under the said Act. This resulted in the said authority passing two orders. One order is under Section 14B of the said Act, wherein and whereby 37% of the arrears has been levied as damages. This is an order dated 16.12.2003 bearing Ref. No. TN/TI/7942/14B/1622/PDS(1)/2003. This order is called in question by the employer in W.P.No.16924 of 2004 and is hereinafter referred to as 'damages impugned order', for the sake of convenience and clarity. The other order is an order levying simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the arrears under Section 7Q of the said Act. This is an order dated 16.12.2003 bearing Ref. TN/TI/7942/7Q/1622/ PDS(1)/2003. This order is called in question by the employer in W.P.No.16925 of 2004 and is hereinafter referred to as 'interest impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

13.In the personal hearing, the employer's representative appeared and clearly admitted the default. The employer has only attempted to explain the default by stating that the employer could not pay due to financial crisis. The said authority has also clearly recorded in the impugned orders that the provisions of law pertaining to damages and interest (Sections 14B and 7Q) were explained to the representative of the employer. As the employer admitted non-payment/default and only pleaded financial distress, the said authority proceeded to levy damages and interest under Sections 14B and 7Q of the said Act respectively. With regard to damages, as would be evident from the extracted section supra, though the said authority had powers to levy damages upto an amount not exceeding the arrears itself, the said authority, considering the financial crisis pleaded by the employer, has levied only 37% as damages.

14.As far as interest is concerned, as would be evident from the extracted Section 7Q of the said Act, the Statute itself provides for levy of simple interest @ 12% per annum and therefore, the said authority has gone by the Statute.

15.This takes me to the grounds on which the two impugned orders, i.e., damages impugned order and interest impugned order, passed by the said authority have been called in question in the instant writ petitions.

16.A perusal of the two affidavits filed in support of the respective writ petitions, reveal that the employer, which is the writ petitioner before me, has clearly admitted default/non-payment, as it had done before the said authority. In other words, that the employer did not discharge its obligations under the said Act, as well as the Rules and Schemes thereunder, is not disputed before this Court. As alluded to supra, it was not disputed before the said Authority either. All that has been pleaded in the writ petitions is that there was financial crisis.

19.Therefore, the plea that the impugned order under Section 14B of the said Act should be a speaking order, though indisputable, is of no avail or help to the writ petitioner in the instant case.

20.There is also a faint attempt to say that interest ought not to have been levied at 12%. From Section 7Q of the said Act, which has been extracted supra, it would be clear that 12% interest is what is provided for under the statute. The other plea that levy of damages was high is also untenable, as the said authority has levied damages only @ 37%.